'the two towers', 'stars wars episode ii', and 'harry potter' are the only ones on that list that qualify as spectacles, because there was a lot of attention paid to both special effects and creating a newly textured world with cinematography... 'spider-man' and 'men in black ii' featured sprinkles of fx in a normal setting, so scratch those off.

the quality of acting in 'stars wars episode ii' and 'harry potter' is far below what's in 'the two towers' and many other movies, so you haven't proven he doesn't have a bias. if a movie has at least mediocre acting in it but qualifies as a spectacle, this geek is going to rate it over movies with better acting and storylines... plain and simple.

lol, your last two sentences are incredibly childish

so you're the bigger p.t. anderson fanboy... hooray! congratulations!

i don't care whose opinion you value more. i'm only pointing out that his reliability is severely in question, and i'm not doing that to make mine look any more reliable. we all have our deficiencies and biases as individual critics, seasoned or green. just as i wouldn't put much weight on what he says about sci-fi spectacles, i wouldn't put much weight on what tarantino says about blaxploitation or cult films since he tends to highly overrate some of those.

are we seriously having a discussion about a 2nd rate film reviewer. if you want real film criticism read johnathan rosenbaum, andrew sarris or vintage pauline kael, something with meat to it. arguing over reviews seems silly. you either agree or disagree with the point being made, but it's all opinion and usually not the least bit academic, and thus really shouldn't be used as a basis/support for an argument.

I wasn't using it as support for my argument that it's a great film. It was used to counter the claim that it's a film that "seems to be unanimously regarded as a passable summer flick carried mostly by special effects."

i see. he definitely chose the wrong word in 'unanimously'.
i still think it's amazing how so many reviews left out any mention of the blatant use of 9-11 imagery and political overtones. i mean the vfx are definitely nice, but i think there are other more interesting, if not important, things at work beneath the shiny surface.

the delibrately exaggerated words "unanimously" and "passable" would not have been used if i didn't read any suggestion of it being better than two films voted onto afi's top 100...

like i said, i could be wrong since i haven't seen it yet, but hardly any reviews i've read expressed any indication of this movie enduring through the ages like 'e.t.' or 'close encounters' or being substantial in both special effects and story weight. the difference is those two movies that are now regarded as classics wowed on both accounts..

I'm sure you hold AFI's list in high regard, what with films that you think are overrated (like Forrest Gump) being on it and "big spectacles presented with dazzling special effects" like Star Wars being ahead of films such as Amadeus.

Close Encounters and E.T. are nowhere near Spielberg's best work and never will be.

Have you noticed our "debates" take a sadly similar pattern?

Riz: *opinion on a movie*
Brahman: "woooooooooooow, that's the worst opinion i've EVER read. you need to be swiftly removed from the international film wank circle. you need to be spank- i mean disciplined by me some more. no one who knows ANYTHING about movies would utter such nonsense. omg."
Riz: "Actually, you're wrong: here's some people who are well versed in the world of movies who share a similar opinion."
*2 pages of arguments on the worth of said reviewer*
Brahman: "in conclusion... woooooooooooooow, that's still the worst thing i've EVER heard (until the next opinion i see that i agree with)"
Riz: Dude, Nimrod wants his style back.

Come back and continue this discussion when you've: a) seen the movie b) calmed down a bit and c) got an opinion anywhere near as Godly as mine.

I'm sure you hold AFI's list in high regard, what with films that you think are overrated (like Forrest Gump) being on it and "big spectacles presented with dazzling special effects" like Star Wars being ahead of films such as Amadeus.

Click to expand...

lol, you're fumbling over yourself and taking my words all out of context

(1) 'forrest gump' isn't as overrated as tom hanks is
(2) the list's order is of not much importance to me... being among the top 100 is what's most important
(3) i have no problem with grand film epics with a lot of special effects. i'm saying that there needs to be more than that, and i'm guessing films like 'stars wars' and 'indiana jones' definitely have more epic storylines to support it more than 'wotw' has. another terrible reference...

are you just totally incapable of making a good point and comprehending things correctly or are you just doing this on purpose???

Close Encounters and E.T. are nowhere near Spielberg's best work and never will be.

Click to expand...

and? where have i said they're his best work? i just expressed doubt over the assertion based on your track record...

Riz: "Actually, you're wrong: here's some people who are well versed in the world of movies who share a similar opinion."

Click to expand...

yeah, and "some people" usually consists of 2 or 3 weirdo dungeon and dragon player lookin dweebs...

i remember you saying you saw it on an old full-screen vhs, and while that doesn't do anything to take away from the story you truly didn't get the whole magnificence without seeing leone's masterful use of composition within the frame

lol, you're fumbling over yourself and taking my words all out of context

(1) 'forrest gump' isn't as overrated as tom hanks is
(2) the list's order is of not much importance to me... being among the top 100 is what's most important
(3) i have no problem with grand film epics with a lot of special effects. i'm saying that there needs to be more than that, and i'm guessing films like 'stars wars' and 'indiana jones' definitely have more epic storylines to support it more than 'wotw' has. another terrible reference...

are you just totally incapable of making a good point and comprehending things correctly or are you just doing this on purpose???

Click to expand...

1) regardless, you still think Forrest Gump is overrated. I certainly know you wouldn't place it above some that they have.

2) the order isn't so important? Then why the near nervous breakdown (see? you're not the only one who can exaggerate) at Solaris being one place above PDL in a far less relevant/important list?

3) so now they need epic storylines to support them?

Brahman said:

and? where have i said they're his best work? i just expressed doubt over the assertion based on your track record...

Click to expand...

Where did I say that's what you stated? They both placed on the AFI list above most of his other work.

Brahman said:

yeah, and "some people" usually consists of 2 or 3 weirdo dungeon and dragon player lookin dweebs...

Click to expand...

lol @ someone who feels the need to "discipline" others trying to belittle the character of anyone else.

btw, I've only ever provied three links to people somewhat agreeing with me: Harry Knowles, a list of critics on rottentomatoes and Roger Ebert. Dungeon and what?

1) regardless, you still think Forrest Gump is overrated. I certainly know you wouldn't place it above some that they have.

Click to expand...

true, but it's still a good film, and i understand the ranking and placement based on some of the other criteria that was used like 'legacy' and 'cultural impact'. regardless of one's personal opinion, the movie resonated through society and had people quoting many lines from it.

2) the order isn't so important? Then why the near nervous breakdown (see? you're not the only one who can exaggerate) at Solaris being one place above PDL in a far less relevant/important list?

Click to expand...

the order for the afi list isn't as focused on quality alone as many critics top 10 lists for a single year are

3) so now they need epic storylines to support them?

Click to expand...

epic or at least good ones that hold up well for the film's duration. everybody, even the ones who liked 'wotw', seems to be complaining about it sagging, losing air, or flat-out falling on its face towards the end.

Where did I say that's what you stated? They both placed on the AFI list above most of his other work.

This whole thing is based on the idea that a film can only be great if it has good character development, etc. While most of my favourite films do meet that criteria, sometimes, a film works on a completely different set of rules.

Did WOTW have good character development? No. A complex strory with many levels of depth? Absolutely not. Did it, for the most part, achieve its purpose with me and do what it set out to do? Completely.

E.T. and Encounters didn't completely effect me in the way they were supposed to, therefore, I place WOTW higher than them. Simple, no?